Harry's Rant Page: Retire Outs

I think a page devoted to absurdity which now envelopes cricket's language is now long over due.

There's other stuff that tends that wrangles too...

21/03

This isn't really a rant, it's just something that I find distasteful, Retire Outs (almost exclusively in T20s)

The BBC posted this in February:

There has been a growing trend of T20 batters retiring out for tactical reasons.

The move occurs for multiple reasons, including the batter being retired out because they are struggling to score quickly enough, or to get a faster-scoring batter at the crease earlier.

This also happens in situations where a team feels they have a batter waiting to be introduced that is a better match-up to the opposing team's bowlers.

While it is within the rules to do this, there is an argument around the ‘spirit of cricket’ as to whether teams should or should not be allowed to do it.

In the opening three weeks of 2026, there were eight cases of batters retiring early for tactical reasons in men's and women's franchise leagues across the globe.

The Big Bash League, Super Smash, SA20 and Women's Premier League have all seen recent incidences.

Of the eight cases that have occurred, four saw batters being retired with a strike rate below 100, meaning they were scoring at a rate of slower than one run per delivery faced.

What do the professionals think?


Former New Zealand international BJ Watling, who coaches Northern Brave in his native country, has been a frequent user of this tactic, and even did it twice in one match during their fixture against the Volts last month, which they eventually drew.

"[It's] clearly a tactic coming into the game, but one we are just learning about and trying to make decisions that are best for the team in the situations required," Watling told The Post, external.

"All our players have the ability to win games of cricket and sometimes in certain situations it might suit someone else's skillset, and that's what we weigh up as a team."

England pace bowler Tymal Mills is in favour of the tactic, and believes it is important to look past any potential debates around the spirit of the game.

"I think there's certain situations when it's just the smart thing to do," England bowler Tymal Mills told BBC Sport.

"You have to try and remove some of the emotion out of it and just focus on what's the best thing to do for the team in that situation.

"The smart thing to do when there's only a few overs left is to try and give those guys a platform to kind of propel you to a huge score. I guess you just have to be mindful that you make sure you get around the batter that you are retiring out, and making sure that they know that you know it's nothing personal.

"Hopefully it's something that becomes less of a stigma, and it's just viewed as part of the tactics of a game."

Somerset all-rounder Tom Abell is also not against the tactic, but says that it does not necessarily always lead to success.

"It's a tactical decision and there's no guarantees that it works out," Abell told BBC Sport.

"The set batter might get retired out and then the new player comes in and you know, struggles and either gets out or takes a few balls."

But he added that conversely, it can work against a team that have "got used to the surface" or adjusted to the opposition bowlers.

"There's occasions when you need a bit of time to sort of 'get yourself in' before you start going. I think there's certain situations that it can benefit teams and obviously work out. Then there's other times where it probably hinders you.

"I think it's just a tactical decision that I wouldn't necessarily say affects the spirit of cricket because that's just my opinion. It doesn't always work out for the batting team."

I think if it's going to happen [and it's a growing trend], then the batting side should lose a ball...

So then why bother?

Change the mindset and[the "retiring" batsman should] treat a delivery as freehit with the intent that the ball goes long or he/she gets themself out (hit wicket if necessary). 

02/10

Just like blaming the County Championship for the conjestion and volume of cricket during small periods of the summer months, after deciding to introduce a new fourth format and blocks of each format into the calendar; a cricket ground has been effectively banned because a council decided to build a leisure centre with car park near to that existing cricket ground.

Cricket banned at 200-year-old Essex ground amid ‘Nimbyism’ accusations

Three clubs will be forced to find new homes after a person was hit on the leg by a ball in nearby car

Ben Rumsby

Cricket has been banned at a village pitch after a member of the public was hit on the leg by a ball in a car park.

In what has been called “another story of English Nimbyism”, Danbury Parish Council has confirmed that “no adult hardball cricket” can take place at the village’s Dawson Memorial Field “for the foreseeable future”. Records indicate that cricket had been played at the ground since at least 1799.

The ban comes following a meeting of the council last Wednesday, held more than three months after Telegraph Sport revealed play at the Essex ground had been suspended indefinitely. That came after someone in the car park of the adjacent leisure centre was hit on the leg.

The parish council said last week’s decision was reached following “advice received from professional and legal advisors”.

‘Well and truly banned’

Danbury Cricket Club secretary Rory Carlton called the ban an “absolute tragedy” after it left his and other two clubs – Oaklands and Tuskers – unable to play home fixtures. It puts the futures of all clubs at risk.

He told the BBC: “I’m incredibly disappointed, although I have to say not surprised.

“The biggest loss is to the village of Danbury. It really takes something away, that soft benefit for residents.

“We’re trying to find an alternative ground in the local area but, speaking to Essex Cricket, grounds are as rare as hen’s teeth – it’s very difficult to find one.

“[The council] were very keen to say over the summer that it’s not banned; I think it’s safe to say that it is well and truly banned.”

Nimbyism accusations

Phil Walker, editor-in-chief of Wisden Cricket Monthly, said the “demoralising” decision was “unfortunately another story of English Nimbyism”.

He added: “It sets a dangerous precedent because if we are going to move towards this kind of attitude in English life, then there’s a lot of good things out there that are going to fall by the wayside.”

Telegraph Sport revealed in June how two heated meetings had failed to reach agreement on the return of cricket to the village.

The parish council was criticised for a lack of “common sense” and 3,275 people signed a petition before it held an extraordinary meeting on July 9 to decide if the suspension could be lifted.

That meeting determined that “no short-term resolution” was possible and that a further meeting would be held on September 24 following consideration of “a solution to the longer-term resumption of cricket”.

The council added: “Cricket in Danbury is currently played on a multi-use recreation field adjacent to a public car park; on May 17 an incident was recorded whereby a member of the public had been hit on the back of the leg/ankle by a cricket ball. This incident follows reports of two car windows and a roof tile on the Danbury Leisure Centre being broken last season.

“A discussion was held with the cricket teams following the car park incident which revealed that three to four balls on average were hit into the car park every match.

“This led the Parish Council to seek both legal and risk assessment advice, which included a specialist body experienced in assessing risks specifically with regards to cricket.

“The advice from both professionals was to implement mitigation solutions sufficient to prevent injury to residents of Danbury and members of the public using the facilities of the Danbury Leisure Centre and surrounding area. This solution was unequivocal; a minimum of 20 metre high nets would be required, not only along the boundary of the car park but for a significant length of the boundary; the cost of implementation running into tens of thousands of pounds.”

It went on: “We hope, having explained the background to the stance the Parish Council had to take, other than facing future potential litigation (in the event of injury) that our residents and supporters of cricket will understand why the Parish Council and its councillors have been upset over the continuous adverse press and social media commentary.

“Finally, to be clear, not one councillor wanted cricket to be suspended. The Parish Council would have put itself in a potentially vulnerable position if it had ignored the advice given by the experts and it has gone the extra mile to find a pragmatic solution that is also fair to all users of the leisure centre and other facilities the recreation grounds offer to its residents and other members of the public.”

06/08

A spot of hypocrisy this time, if that's the right word.

The H*ndred! I thought that the reason for the existence of a shorter format of 100 balls and the silly gimmicks with the 10 ball double overs/sets was time. That terrestrial TV wouldn't be able to schedule three hours to show a normal T20 match, and the whole point of the divisive claptrap was to get CRICKET on free to view live TV.

I've just looked at my mother's TV guide for yesterday; BBC2 had the Spirits v Indispensables starting at 2.30 PM and the programme concluded at 9.30 PM, obviously both the Men's and Women's games, but certainly a longer scheduled slot than the TV slot we were led to believe was possible and were told was possible.

7 bloody hours!

Time for two Blast games at different venues to run back to back. All that was needed was a little imagination.

26/05

It dawned on me yesterday that the nightwatch-man/er is a superfluous emasculation of the language of cricket as women domestically don't, and women internationally rarely play multi-day format cricket anymore. 

There have been just 40 Women's Test Matches worldwide this century.

Only men's cricket has the need for a nightwatchman on occasions, so why instruct a change (which is almost certainly the case for the poor commentators that continually forget to be wokey)?

24/05

A return to reality yesterday with the Yorkshire commentary only spoilt by Bracegidle going all new age woke at the end using the nightwatcher terminology. He's already said "nightwatchman territory"

Third man was back as were batsmen.

22/05

T20 cricket takes centre stage in the fixtures next week and along with it some idiotic inconsistencies with the team labelling.

Unlike with The Blaze, Hampshire Women don't appear to have an academy, but the Vipers Academy does still appear to be a thing as does Thunder Academy.

However next week also sees Hampshire Hawks Women and Lancashire 2nd XI Women (v Blaze 2nd XI) having T20 games.

Hampshire 2nd XI Women also play games of T20 next week as do Lancashire Thunder.

Warwickshire appear to fallen out with Birmingham, so now in T20 we just have Bears Men and Bears Women, but also Warwickshire Men 2nd XI but also we have:

Neither Hawks or Bears Women...

.. .I'm not even trying to be obtuse, I'm just running through the fixture list. That's before we get to the unspecified gender u16s fixtures, do we presume that they're lads' fixtures or are we not allowed to presume anymore?

For the record England Lions play India Men A next week and our team remains Notts Outlaws for the Blast competition (for now at least).

20/05

The Durham commentators continued the emasculation of a nightwatchman yesterday with nightwatch...

Sounds like something the stalker nightwatcher might wear to tell the time, maybe

19/05

John on Facebook has just pointed out a new one on Pravda, but I'm sure some of the new wave of cricket commentators (which are appearing on the live streams away from the BBC output) will already use it, instead of Nightwatchman, the latest Pravda report has Rob Lord as a "nightwatcher".

Third man dropped the man a couple of years back, about the same time as batsman became batter, which still sound lame and out of context (to me).

The woke agenda appears to wish to eliminate man/men, wherever it appears in cricket,which is a little bit of a contridiction as men and women do not play along side each other at the elite level but the County name + Men or Women nevertheless do now appear on the online scorecards, not that Nottinghamshire Women play Rothesay County Championship or much else. The Blaze, an exclusively women's franchise, appears to have escaped so far.

Nightwatcher, sounds like a euphemism for a stalker or Peeping Tom.

A nightwatchman in contrast, by definition looks after something over night 

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages 

nightwatchman

/ˌnʌɪtˈwɒtʃmən/

noun

1. 1.

   a person whose job is to guard a building at night.
2. 2.

   Cricket

   an inferior batter sent in to bat when a wicket falls just before the end of a day's play, to avoid the dismissal of a better one in adverse conditions.